eRiposte, While your articles are full of information about what Democratic candidate said what, when and how about the other... I find the destructive criticism of the Dem. candidates not very helpful when we have a Neo-Con pResident currently lying his ass off about the whole Iranian Nuclear threat and NIE report.
Posted by Seven of Six at December 6, 2007 08:33 AM1) The stark difference between S.970 and Kyl-Lieberman has been pointed out to you on several occasions. S.970 explicitly stated that it (A) was meant to encourage diplomacy and international cooperation and (B) explicitly stated that it did NOT authorize or encourage military action. Kyl-Lieberman, on the other hand, rubber-stamped the administration claims about Iran killing US troops in Iraq. So, yes it did give Bush the benefit of the doubt. And it did explicitly link US military strategy and Iran.
Dick Durbin was stupid to vote for it. As was Senator Clinton. Obama should have been there for the vote, but that does not excuse Clinton's vote.
2) His statement on Social Security in no way gives Bush the benefit of the doubt. In fact, his statement assums as fact that Bush WAS doing what he was accused of.
3) You are conflating SCOTUS appointments and the decision to take the country to war. The power to appoint SCOTUS members is reserved to the President, while declaring war is a power reserved to Congress. Accordingly, the President has been viewed as being entitled to a certain degree of deference regarding the latter. Certainly, when one party controls the Senate and the Presidency, it is foolish to suggest that President is not entitled to some deference--that's been the way it has worked for the first 200 years or so. In contrast, the decision to go to war belongs solely to Congress, and the President is entitled to no deference here. Especially when such decisions are contingent upon intelligence, which itself requires a leap of faith in the administration.
4) Clinton's invocation of Obama's tribune was misleading in that it was a red herring, in two respects:
a) Obama has never himself said that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. She doesn't need to drag up a 2004 quote to establish that--he was saying that as recently as 2007. That is not the issue.
b) The real issue was/is what to do about Iran in the present. The real subtext here is that Clinton is trying to rebut Obama's criticism of saber rattling with what she would claim is an example of him saber rattling. His answering of a hypothetical "what if diplomacy and sanctions fail" question was unwise (best not to talk about bombing Iran at all), but it hardly equates to linking our military strategy in Iraq to the goal of containing Iran and claims that Iran is killing US soldiers.
Should read: "Accordingly, the President has been viewed as being entitled to a certain degree of deference regarding the FORMER."
Posted by Geek, Esq. at December 6, 2007 08:41 AMIt just goes to show that none of the candidates have always done or said the right thing when it comes to Bush.
Posted by Ga6thDem at December 6, 2007 11:01 AMHillary's triangulation and vote for Kyle-Liebermann is coming back to bite her in the ass.
Posted by Gay Veteran at December 6, 2007 11:55 AMPersonally I believe that Kyl-Liebermann was correct in the assumption that Iranian weaponry was killing American troops. That came not just from the administration but also from the military on the ground in Iraq. Frankly, it stands to reason that Iran would attempt to help their fellow Shia in Iraq but that doesn't mean we should just stand by and let it happen.
According to reports, the weaponry coming across the border from Iran has stopped or slowed a lot. That's a good thing and whether Kyl-Liebermann helped with that we can't really say bit it's a possibility.
That being said, I don't think a Yea vote was a mistake. You have your opinions and I'll have mind.
Geek Esq.,
Have been tied up all day - will try to respond to your comments (and others) tomorrow. Glad to get substantive responses from you to my post - this is the kind of debate/discussion I love. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Posted by eriposte at December 6, 2007 09:27 PMThey don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent.
howard dean has made this kind of statement. you want to throw him on the pyre too?
Posted by jello at December 8, 2007 05:38 AMMy response to your comments...
1) The stark difference between S.970 and Kyl-Lieberman has been pointed out to you on several occasions. S.970 explicitly stated that it (A) was meant to encourage diplomacy and international cooperation and (B) explicitly stated that it did NOT authorize or encourage military action. Kyl-Lieberman, on the other hand, rubber-stamped the administration claims about Iran killing US troops in Iraq. So, yes it did give Bush the benefit of the doubt. And it did explicitly link US military strategy and Iran.
Dick Durbin was stupid to vote for it. As was Senator Clinton. Obama should have been there for the vote, but that does not excuse Clinton's vote.
I've also pointed out to you previously that:
(a) Sen. Clinton has primarily been attacked by Edwards and other candidates for supporting the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization and they have attacked her saying this designation is inconsistent with a path of diplomacy. Edwards repeated his criticism again in this NPR debate by saying: "Well, first of all, diplomacy -- declaring a military group sponsored by the state of Iran a terrorist organization, that's supposed to be diplomacy?" So, it is perfectly fair and reasonable for me to repeatedly highlight the fact that Sen. Obama supported that very same designation that Sen. Clinton supported. (Not to mention, Sen. Edwards' criticism is coming from someone who authorized the designation of the state of Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism and made one of the most hawkish anti-Iran speeches I've seen earlier this year).
(b) The claim that Kyl-Lieberman authorized any kind of military action, especially against Iran, is completely false. It was a nonbinding Sense of the Senate resolution and I've explained previously that, once it was stripped of the ridiculous passages that originally led to Sen. Webb's strong criticisms of it, what was left said nothing more than what the U.S. Government is doing in Iraq today - i.e., the U.S. Government is already fighting terrorist or insurgent groups supported by Iran within Iraq's borders. KL did not in any way authorize any action against Iran inside Iran's borders and explicit language was added in the final bill that called out the importance of diplomacy in dealing with Iraq.
(c) It was not just Kyl-Lieberman that "rubber-stamped" the administration's assertions that Iranian supported terrorists or insurgents were killing U.S. soldiers. Sen. Obama has stated the same thing.
2) His statement on Social Security in no way gives Bush the benefit of the doubt. In fact, his statement assums as fact that Bush WAS doing what he was accused of.
You are misinterpreting what I said in my post. Sen. Obama's assertion against Sen. Clinton has been that people who act in a way that might support Bush and Cheney are in effect enabling Bush and Cheney and can be accused of giving Bush and Cheney the "benefit of the doubt". By his definition (not mine), his initial adoption of the social security "crisis" rhetoric - which the left fought against for a long time because it might lead to privatization by enabling Bush - is an example of his giving Bush "the benefit of the doubt" that Bush will somehow not exploit his rhetoric to push for bad changes to Social Security. No difference whatsoever. As Krugman pointed out, right-wing talk radio started saying how "even Obama" is saying social security is going bust. Case closed.
3) You are conflating SCOTUS appointments and the decision to take the country to war. The power to appoint SCOTUS members is reserved to the President, while declaring war is a power reserved to Congress. Accordingly, the President has been viewed as being entitled to a certain degree of deference regarding the latter. Certainly, when one party controls the Senate and the Presidency, it is foolish to suggest that President is not entitled to some deference--that's been the way it has worked for the first 200 years or so. In contrast, the decision to go to war belongs solely to Congress, and the President is entitled to no deference here. Especially when such decisions are contingent upon intelligence, which itself requires a leap of faith in the administration.
Come on. The President cannot appoint SCOTUS members without the Senate's consent - this is basic Constitutional Law . Let's not change reality just to defend Obama's misguided argument. The Senate has significant power on SCOTUS appointments and has successfully blocked such appointments in the past (remember Robert Bork?). In contrast, the War Powers Act of 1973, passed by Congress: "allows the President to use military forces for 60 days, without a formal declaration of war by Congress. It also grants an additional 30 days upon a formal request by the President, regardless of Congress's agreement with the request". So, the reality is the opposite of what you have claimed.
4) Clinton's invocation of Obama's tribune was misleading in that it was a red herring, in two respects:
a) Obama has never himself said that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon. She doesn't need to drag up a 2004 quote to establish that--he was saying that as recently as 2007. That is not the issue.
b) The real issue was/is what to do about Iran in the present. The real subtext here is that Clinton is trying to rebut Obama's criticism of saber rattling with what she would claim is an example of him saber rattling. His answering of a hypothetical "what if diplomacy and sanctions fail" question was unwise (best not to talk about bombing Iran at all), but it hardly equates to linking our military strategy in Iraq to the goal of containing Iran and claims that Iran is killing US soldiers.
I clearly disagree on 4 a). Obama's comments made it clear that he believed Iran could be pursuing nuclear weapons and specific steps should be taken to address the developing situation back in 2004. So, there was nothing misleading about Sen. Clinton's comment. In fact. Sen. Obama would get voted out of office if he simply gave the benefit of doubt to countries like Iran without assuming that there is a possibility they might be pursuing deadly weapons. On 4 b), I've discussed this multiple times before. Our military strategy in Iraq today involves fighting terrorists and insurgents who are killing innocent Iraqis and American soldiers. We are not trying to poll terrorists in the middle of gun battles to find out whether they are supported by Iran, before killing them. Is Sen. Obama actually advocating that if there are terrorists inside Iraq, supported by Iran, who are blowing up Americans or Iraqis, that American troops inside Iraq should do nothing about that? That would be suicidally stupid. Either use the troops to deter terrorists inside Iraq (regardless of who is supporting them) or get the troops out. This nonsensical parsing about terrorists supported by Iran being off the table makes no sense. (Of course, Sen. Obama later put this on the table - see #III.)
KL was a counter-productive resolution that no one should have supported because it may have weakened the hand of American-friendly Iranians - not because it authorized military action.
Posted by eriposte at December 8, 2007 11:35 AM